(19-12-2016 09:16 AM)Aliza Wrote: Why can't it be that G-d is omnipotent, and chooses not to intervene?

According to my religion, G-d made a promise to allow us freewill, so we're allowed to screw up our world anyway we like. The whole bible is about how man screws up and G-d lets them screw up and lets them deal with the consequences. The onus is on us, not G-d, to improve our world so we're all happy and content.

This whole thing about waiting around and depending on G-d to fix shit and then blaming G-d when things aren't going well is entirely Christian. We have disease because life is an automatic process. Disease runs rampant because too many of us are spending our time shaking our fists at G-d instead of sitting through biology classes at university.

But God does intervene. He had no problem overriding Pharaoh's free will in Exodus. He has no problem killing people for touching the ark of the covenant. Or for daring to hold a census. I take it that the nation of Israel's census bureau do not suffer from 100% mortality every time they collect statistics nowadays?

Anyway, let's accept that we have an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God. Can he really claim omnibenevolence if he does not intervene?

God loves us. Doesn't want us to suffer. Has the power to act and prevent evil but does not do so. If I were asked right now if I wanted to cure disease and I said yes, that is my freewill. I choose it. Yet despite that the entire human population of the world would choose to cure disease (maybe there are some oddballs who wouldn't), God doesn't act on that, even though it would be our free choice? So in that particular instance our free will and God's desires should align and still he doesn't act?

Let's consider a murder scene. A criminal chases you Aliza into a dark alley. He's coming for you with a knife. God watches idly, according to his non-intervention policy. He knows that shortly you will die horribly, in great pain, but he does not act. This is part of his plan. The free will of the murderer must be respected. The reason that he does not act is because of the murderer's free will. Yet your free will to not die, he doesn't assist you with that. He could but he won't. In effect he's chosen that the murderer's free will is more important than yours.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

(17-12-2016 04:22 PM)morondog Wrote: PS please justify your statement that HIV / AIDS was not a plague sent by God? How do you know that? Or is it just something that God told you?

The NT clearly teaches that God is not wrathful. Jesus was the recipient of all God's wrath.

He says while selectively ignoring the countless examples of God's completely opposite behavior...

But, the real reason I'm replying to this is to point out that, according to what you believe, God was the first thing in existence and he created everything else. So, even if God didn't directly create HIV/AIDS, he created the environment in which is existence is possible. Therefore, God is directly responsible for this as well as anything else that is bad or evil. Worse yet, since he knows everything past, present, and future, he knew before he created anything just how much suffering his environment would bring. Being omnipotent, he could have changed this before creating anything. But he didn't, did he... What do you think that says about your God?

A bit more expansion on the criminal vs victim in the alleyway. God is watching and not intervening. He has the power to act but does not. Basically he chooses the outcome of the event even if he doesn't act. Because he could act but doesn't, by not acting he chooses that the criminal shall kill the victim. He could have chosen an alternative. He could temporarily paralyze the criminal, he could kill the criminal by dropping a meteorite on him or striking him with lightning. He chose the outcome in which the victim died.

ETA: Note that though the victim and murderer act through free will, it is still God who chooses the outcome, because he could act but doesn't. In other words the free will of either of the people involved in the incident is not actually important. God's plan is the one that is carried out. Therefore God is responsible for the murder.

Also if God is omniscient he knew the murder would take place ahead of time. He chose to let the victim die rather than do anything about it. He could have made the murderer's gun jam, any number of things. But the murderer's free will and careful oiling of his gun mechanism must be respected.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

(18-12-2016 02:02 PM)Bzltyr Wrote: You are stuck with what you can perceive with your five senses. Why. Can't there be so much more? We humans are learning more and more about our natural world but a lot of people cannot accept supernatural just because it cannot be perceived. Why? That gives the human senses a lot of credit. More credit than I will place on my ability to perceive all that there is.

I can accept the possibility of the supernatural. The problem is, so far, there isn't even the smallest smidgen of evidence that anything supernatural exists. And, without it, why would I believe in it?

Do you have even a small bit of evidence - actual evidence - to help me out?

MD, just want to add, omni-benevolence isn't a characteristic of the Abrahamic God. Any educated theist would never claim that. It's only the indoctrinated, uneducated that would claim this. All the Abrahamic texts and the NT clearly show God isn't benevolent to all.

The O3 is: omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-presence.

Edit: I don't know Aliza's stance on this or much about her religion... so, I could be completely wrong. Just going by what I know and learned.

(19-12-2016 10:55 AM)kingschosen Wrote: MD, just want to add, omni-benevolence isn't a characteristic of the Abrahamic God. Any educated theist would never claim that. It's only the indoctrinated, uneducated that would claim this. All the Abrahamic texts and the NT clearly show God isn't benevolent to all.

The O3 is: omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-presence.

Yeah, I don't know where this omni-benevolence claim comes from. I assumed it was a Christian thing.

(19-12-2016 10:55 AM)kingschosen Wrote: MD, just want to add, omni-benevolence isn't a characteristic of the Abrahamic God. Any educated theist would never claim that. It's only the indoctrinated, uneducated that would claim this. All the Abrahamic texts and the NT clearly show God isn't benevolent to all.

The O3 is: omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-presence.

Edit: I don't know Aliza's stance on this or much about her religion... so, I could be completely wrong. Just going by what I know and learned.

If I remember correctly Matt Dillahunty said the Omnis don't appear in scripture at all.